<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Citizen Economists &#187; budget</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.citizeneconomists.com/blogs/tag/budget/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.citizeneconomists.com/blogs</link>
	<description>Citizen Economists is an online economics magazine written by citizen journalists. These ordinary citizens provide reports and commentary on the current events affecting the economics of the fields they work in.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 20:10:41 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Parsing the Budget Announcements</title>
		<link>http://www.citizeneconomists.com/blogs/2009/07/07/parsing-the-budget-announcements/</link>
		<comments>http://www.citizeneconomists.com/blogs/2009/07/07/parsing-the-budget-announcements/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Jul 2009 14:58:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ajay Shah</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[International Economics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[budget]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[India]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[recession]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.citizeneconomists.com/blogs/?p=1508</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>The Great Recession has induced a unique setting for Indian economic policy. See India in the Great Recession (April 2009) and The setting for the budget speech (May 2009).</p> <p>These articles emphasise that the dominant story of Indian business cycle fluctuations is the situation with private corporate investment. When this analysis was written (April <span style="color:#777"> . . . &#8594; Read More: <a href="http://www.citizeneconomists.com/blogs/2009/07/07/parsing-the-budget-announcements/">Parsing the Budget Announcements</a></span>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Great Recession has induced a unique setting for Indian economic policy. See <a href="http://www.mayin.org/ajayshah/MEDIA/2009/iigr.html"><em>India in the Great Recession</em></a> (April 2009) and <a href="http://www.mayin.org/ajayshah/MEDIA/2009/setting.html"><em>The setting for the budget speech</em></a> (May 2009).</p>
<p>These articles emphasise that the dominant story of Indian business cycle fluctuations is the situation with private corporate investment. When this analysis was written (April and May 2009), the problem of a drop in private corporate investment was only a conjecture. Now some data is showing that there is indeed a problem. Here are the two most interesting measures of investment activity, using monthly data. In both cases, I show the average of the four most-recent values of the seasonally adjusted annualised rates (SAAR). This is similar to the familiar year-on-year growth rates of monthly data with one big difference: the yoy growth rate is the average of the latest 12 values while here we&#8217;re averaging the latest 4 months so as to pickup the recent action:</p>
<table border="0" cellpadding="4">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th>Month</th>
<th>IIP capital goods</th>
<th>Capital goods imports</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>May 2008</td>
<td>31</td>
<td>-13</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Jun 2008</td>
<td>19</td>
<td>16</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Jul 2008</td>
<td>-18</td>
<td>98</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Aug 2008</td>
<td>8</td>
<td>-4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Sep 2008</td>
<td>50</td>
<td>25</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Oct 2008</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>-16</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Nov 2008</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>-36</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Dec 2008</td>
<td>11</td>
<td>41</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Jan 2009</td>
<td>-37</td>
<td>-37</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Feb 2009</td>
<td>14</td>
<td>-32</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Mar 2009</td>
<td>-10</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Apr 2009</td>
<td>-21</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>This data shows that there is a significant threat of a substantial dropoff in private corporate investment.</p>
<h3>Fiscal, financial and monetary institutional reform</h3>
<p>FM says he will `return to the FRBM target for fiscal deficit at the earliest and as soon as the negative effects of the global crisis on the Indian economy have been overcome&#8217;. Apart from that, there was nothing on fiscal, financial and monetary institutional reform. Pranab Mukherjee said:</p>
<blockquote><p><em> Never before has Indira Gandhi&#8217;s bold decision to nationalise our banking system exactly 40 years ago &#8211; on 14th of July, 1969 &#8211; appeared as wise and visionary as it has over the past few months. Her approach continues to be our inspiration even as we introduce competition and new technology in this sector. </em></p></blockquote>
<p>Put together, I did not see progress on fiscal, financial and monetary institution building.</p>
<h3>Financing of the government</h3>
<p>There was no statement on using sale of government assets in order to pay down debt.</p>
<p>The GST is to be implemented from 1 April, 2010. I do get nervous given the immense complexity of that effort and the lack of accomplishment on the ground.</p>
<p>There are five major bad taxes in India: STT, cesses, customs, octroi and stamp duty. The budget speech tinkered with none of these. There was an `abolition&#8217; of the commodities transaction tax (which had never been levied anyway). It is distortionary, having taxation of some kinds of financial transactions but not of others. The `fringe benefit tax&#8217; was abolished.</p>
<p>There was no movement towards fiscal austerity that I could discern.</p>
<p>Put together, I did not see progress on financing of the State.</p>
<h3>Core public goods</h3>
<p>Core public goods are the genuine business of the State. There seem to be substantial increases of expenditure on defence and home. This might suggest that the fraction of public expenditure on core public goods might have gone up. I am, so far, not able to tell whether this change is significant.</p>
<h3>Infrastructure</h3>
<p>There seems to be more money being spent on infrastructure. There is little evidence of institutional reform. The Ministry of Finance seems to be keen on building IIFCL, which seems worrisome. It is not clear that IIFCL will not suffer the fate of IDBI / IFCI / etc.</p>
<h3>Education</h3>
<p>The spending on Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) has not risen in nominal terms, which is good, but a new Madhya Shiksha Abhiyan has been created. If this ends up being run like SSA, then we&#8217;ll know that there is little interest amongst politicians in actually getting India&#8217;s children educated.</p>
<h3>Subsidies</h3>
<p>There are good noises about fertiliser and oil subsidies, but no action.</p>
<h3>The role of the budget speech</h3>
<p>Maybe we do wrong in asking for a significant workplan in the highlights of the budget speech. Maybe a lot of good things will get done even though they were not announced. I have an article in <em>Financial Express</em> titled <a href="http://www.mayin.org/ajayshah/MEDIA/2009/budgetspeechtype.html"><em>Which type of budget speech is this?</em></a>.</p>
<h3>Fiscal numbers</h3>
<p>Here is <a href="http://www.mayin.org/ajayshah/A/budget2009aag.ods">a  spreadsheet (.ods file)</a> where I have a few years of data, with  some value added, from `budget at a glance&#8217;. This has no corrections  for the off-balance sheet stuff.</p>
<p>Tax revenues were at 9.17% of GDP in 2007-08. These dropped to 8.59% of GDP in 2008-09 (RE). The budget projection for 09-10 wisely places this number at 8.07% of GDP.</p>
<p>Non-tax revenues are projected to go up a bit: from 1.77% of GDP in 08-09 to 2.39% of GDP in 09-10. This is primarily on the back of revenues from the 3G spectrum auction.</p>
<p>Put together, revenue receipts are budgeted at 10.45% of GDP compared with 10.36% last year and 11.3% the year before. These projections seem reasonable to me.</p>
<p>Fiscal stress + gloomy revenue projections should have led to belt-tightening on expenditure. This did not happen, partly owing to the 6th pay commission.</p>
<p>Non-plan expenditure rose by 21.8% last year and is projected to rise by 12.6% this year. It will go from 10.59% of GDP in 07-08 to 11.83% of GDP in 09-10.</p>
<p>Interest payments to GDP &#8211; a key marker of fiscal stress &#8211; continues to be in troublesome territory, from 3.57% in 07-08 to 3.84% in 09-10. This is despite the dramatic collapse in inflation which should have made government borrowing much cheaper.</p>
<p>Plan expenditure is growing exuberantly: from 4.28% of GDP in 07-08 to 5.53% in 09-10.</p>
<p>With sombre revenues and a good deal of spending, we have dire deficits. The revenue deficit jumped from 1.1% in 07-08 to 4.45% last year and is budgeted at 4.81% the coming year. In other words, there is not even an attempt at fiscal correction.</p>
<p>The fiscal deficit was at 2.65% of GDP in 07-08; this went up to 6.02% last year and is budgeted at 6.82% for 09-10.</p>
<p>And finally, we switched around from a primary surplus of 0.92% in 07-08 to a primary deficit of 2.47% last year and are budgeted to have another big primary deficit of 2.98% in 09-10.</p>
<p>There is a caveat on all these numbers when expressed as percent of GDP. Nominal GDP is projected to be up in 09-10 by 8.35% when compared with the previous year. It is possible to think of combinations of real growth and inflation which will get this, but I would have been happier with a somewhat lower projection.</p>
<p>Other interesting comments: See <a href="http://www.financialexpress.com/news/column-found-but-only-after-translation/485800/0">Jahangir Aziz</a> in <span style="font-style: italic;">Financial Express</span>; <a href="http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/m-govinda-rao-balancing-growthstability/363116/">M. Govinda Rao</a> in <span style="font-style: italic;">Business Standard</span>; <a href="http://budget.business-standard.com/storypage.php?id=40&amp;autono=363148">an editorial</a> in <span style="font-style: italic;">Business Standard</span>.</p>
<h3>Good news</h3>
<p>Don&#8217;t I have any good news? I do. At NSE, derivatives on Nifty did turnover of Rs.707 billion or $14.7 billion. And, <a href="http://www.nseindia.com/marketinfo/fxTracker/fxTracker.jsp#">currency futures at NSE</a> did turnover of $1.2 billion. So we&#8217;re in good shape on having a strong equity market, and we&#8217;re learning how to do currency trading also.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.citizeneconomists.com/blogs/2009/07/07/parsing-the-budget-announcements/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Simple Plan to Save California</title>
		<link>http://www.citizeneconomists.com/blogs/2009/07/01/a-simple-plan-to-save-california/</link>
		<comments>http://www.citizeneconomists.com/blogs/2009/07/01/a-simple-plan-to-save-california/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2009 17:55:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>David Barr</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics and Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bankruptcy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[budget]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[debt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[taxation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.citizeneconomists.com/blogs/?p=1363</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Congress needs to enact a single national policy to support any state in crises. <span style="color:#777"> . . . &#8594; Read More: <a href="http://www.citizeneconomists.com/blogs/2009/07/01/a-simple-plan-to-save-california/">A Simple Plan to Save California</a></span>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span>Sometime in the next couple of months The Federal Government is going to give the state of California a lot of money.<span> </span>After lavishing more than a trillion dollars on<span> </span>Banks, Insurers and Auto Companies, there is a 0% probability that the government will sit back and let the largest<span> </span>state fail.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span>There real question is how do we go about propping up California.<span> </span>Whether we like it or not, California will set a precedent for the rest of the country.<span> </span>Believe it or not, California is not the only State struggling to keep its head above water.<span> </span>Congress and the administration need to have a strategy ready before Arnold comes crawling cap in hand to Washington.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span>Rather than putting together an ad-hoc plan for California, we should develop a national strategy for dealing with insolvent states.<span> </span>The plan that I am proposing is simple, non-intrusive and will ensure that Federal Government gets back every penny that it spends bailing out the states.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span>Federal loans should be made available to any state that chooses to accept them.<span> </span>In exchange, the state will be required to levy a 1% sales tax, whose revenue would be directed to the Federal government until the loan is repaid.<span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">While, no one would enjoy paying the extra tax, it wouldn’t be nearly as devastating as the massive budget cuts currently facing states across the country.<span> </span>By securing a dedicated revenue stream, the loan would be risk free for the Federal Government.<span> </span>Furthermore, enacting a national policy would assure investors that state bonds were a safe investment, reducing borrowing costs for every state.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">The greatest advantage of this plan would be in avoiding the political circus of negotiating a special bailout for every state in need.<span> </span>My plan would not solve the underlying problems facing California, but that is intentional.<span> </span>It is up to voters and politicians in California to find a long term solution to the state’s budget crises.<span> </span>Allowing Washington to interfere in the fine details of the State budget would be far worse.</p>
<span class="sfforumlink"><a href="http://www.citizeneconomists.com/blogs/forum/politics-and-government/a-simple-plan-to-save-california"><img src="http://www.citizeneconomists.com/blogs/wp-content/plugins/simple-forum/styles/icons/default/bloglink.png" alt="" /> Join the forum discussion on this post</a> - (1) Posts</span>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.citizeneconomists.com/blogs/2009/07/01/a-simple-plan-to-save-california/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

